AQA, God and the World - Design essay? Watch

tomfailinghelp
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Hello

I was wondering if someone could have a quick glance over this for me?

I know it's not particularly good, but I am having a rather difficult time trying to figure out where I am and what to improve because my teacher is pathetically incompetent

It's a 30 Mark one on the AQA spec

'We see examples of design throughout the natural world and conclude that an intelligent designer is clearly demonstrated' assess whether this argument succeeds


This statement outlines the argument for design, which was first posited by Thomas Aquinas; Aquinas suggests that around us we consistently see the world as constructed with an end in mind, for example, an eye is clearly 'for' seeing. This drives Aquinas to compare the universe to an arrow travelling to its ultimate destination, that must have been fired by some intelligence. This teleological argument claims to demonstrate the existence of God through appeal to experience, unlike ontological arguments, which claim to do so deductively. Ultimately, Aquinas' argument fails in that it supposes purposes where none is clearly evidenced, but he does prepare the stage for further design arguments.


One such argument was made by William Paley. Paley argued that if one found a rock on a heath, one could imagine that it just happened to be there, but if one found a watch, one would suppose a creator. He compares this to human beings in their complexity and apparent 'purpose'. It takes very little to discount Paley's theory, as we have since been enlightened that such complex beings can simply appear - through the process of natural selection. Of course, claims which challenge evolutionary theory can also challenge this objection; Michael Behe claims to have located an 'irreducible complex' functioning tail in some bacteria. If indeed he has, then this ostensibly debunks evolutionary theory, which suggests that such a tail arrived whole, rather than gradually becoming more complex. If this is so, then we may not reasonably refute design arguments by appealing to evolution. Ultimately Behe's argument fails as such rudimentary appendages often acquire a primary use, e.g. As a tail, after previously functioning as something minor, e.g. a pump, falsifying his objection that the tail is 'irreducible complex'. However, this is not he only grounds upon which Behe's argument is inadequate.


An extremely strong claim, which destroys Behe's argument and challenges design arguments as a whole, is that many 'designed' parts are absolutely useless. To illustrate, human 'wisdom teeth' have become vestigial following the shrinking of the jaw during the course of evolution. If such superfluous formations exist, it seems most contradictory to suggest that the world is a perfectly designed machine. Paley objects that the problem is illusory; the wisdom teeth are not useless, but have a function that is yet unknown to humans. This claim is obviously weak in that it is completely unverifiable, and as such necessitates no further investigation. This whole argument seems to concur with Hume's ironic comparison of the universe to a vegetable, rather than to a machine, which emphatically rejects Paley's claim.


A further argument posed by Hume is that the watch is an inappropriate analogy, i.e. we all know that a watchmaker designs and manufactures watches, but we can know no such thing about the universe in the sense that one can by seeing a watch made. Paley pre-empted this challenge, and argued that we, for the most part, do not know how a watch is made, 'does one in a million know how oval frames are turned?', which suggests that we can infer simply from the complexity alone that a watch has a maker. This is a poor argument though, and it fails to adequately support it's point; though one might not have had direct experience of watch making we are all entirely aware of it. Moreover, we can't abstract from experiences inside the universe to ones that occurred outside it in any meaningful way.


To conclude, this statement fails on a number of counts. Firstly, it is not clear at all that we see design throughout the universe; it is more like a vegetable than a machine,candy to make this claim at all supposes a designer. Secondly, even to do so is not an adequate justification for supposing that a god exists.'
0
reply
TSR Learn Together
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Hi there,

While you're waiting for an answer, did you know we have 300,000 study resources that could answer your question in TSR's Learn together section?

We have everything from Teacher Marked Essays to Mindmaps and Quizzes to help you with your work. Take a look around.

If you're stuck on how to get started, try creating some resources. It's free to do and can help breakdown tough topics into manageable chunks. Get creating now.

Thanks!

Not sure what all of this is about? Head here to find out more.
0
reply
Add!ction
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
This statement outlines the argument for design, which was first posited by Thomas Aquinas in his 5 ways, Summa Theologica; Aquinas suggests that around us we consistently see the world as constructed with a telos (end purpose) in mind, for example, an eye is clearly for seeing. This drives Aquinas to compare the universe to an arrow travelling to its ultimate destination, that must have been fired by some intelligence. The teleological argument claims to demonstrate the existence of God through appeal to experience, unlike ontological arguments, which claim to do so deductively. Ultimately, Aquinas' argument fails in that it supposes purposes where none is clearly evidenced try and give an example, lots of examples will get you that A*, but he does prepare the stage for further design arguments.


One such argument was made by William Paley When?. Paley argued that if one found a rock on a heath, one could imagine that it just happened to be there, but if one found a watch need to mention that it is called the watchmaker analogy, one would suppose a creator. He compares this to human beings in their complexity and apparent 'purpose'. It takes very little to discount Paley's theory, as we have since been enlightened that such complex beings can simply appear - through the process of natural selection. Of course, claims which challenge evolutionary theory can also challenge this objection; Michael Behe claims to have located an 'irreducible complex' functioning tail in some bacteria. If indeed he has, then this ostensibly debunks evolutionary theory, which suggests that such a tail arrived whole, rather than gradually becoming more complex. If this is so, then we may not reasonably refute design arguments by appealing to evolution. Ultimately Behe's argument fails as such rudimentary appendages often acquire a primary use, e.g. As a tail, after previously functioning as something minor, e.g. a pump, falsifying his objection that the tail is 'irreducible complex'. However, this is not he only grounds upon which Behe's argument is inadequate. Really good knowledge of Behe here, expressed coherently. Try and mention Darwin and Dawkins when going down the evolutionary route. You can also mention the appendix of something which no longer has a use.


An extremely strong claim, which destroys Behe's argument and challenges design arguments as a whole, is that many 'designed' parts are absolutely useless. To illustrate, human 'wisdom teeth' have become vestigial following the shrinking of the jaw during the course of evolution. If such superfluous formations exist, it seems most contradictory to suggest that the world is a perfectly designed machine. Paley objects that the problem is illusory; the wisdom teeth are not useless, but have a function that is yet unknown to humans. This claim is obviously weak in that it is completely unverifiable, and as such necessitates no further investigation. This whole argument seems to concur with Hume's ironic comparison of the universe to a vegetable, rather than to a machine, which emphatically rejects Paley's claim.


A further argument posed by Hume is that the watch is an inappropriate analogy, i.e. we all know that a watchmaker designs and manufactures watches, but we can know no such thing about the universe in the sense that one can by seeing a watch made. Paley pre-empted this challenge, and argued that we, for the most part, do not know how a watch is made, 'does one in a million know how oval frames are turned?', which suggests that we can infer simply from the complexity alone that a watch has a maker. This is a poor argument though, and it fails to adequately support it's point; though one might not have had direct experience of watch making we are all entirely aware of it. Moreover, we can't abstract from experiences inside the universe to ones that occurred outside it in any meaningful way.


To conclude, this statement fails on a number of counts. Firstly, it is not clear at all that we see design throughout the universe; it is more like a vegetable than a machine,candy to make this claim at all supposes a designer. Secondly, even to do so is not an adequate justification for supposing that a god exists.' Need a bit more here, you should always hold a point back so that you can offer it in the conclusion.

The bulk of the essay is good and you express you ideas in a mature way making good use of vocab, perhaps you could include more quotes, it is these finer details that give the examiner confidence that you know your stuff.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Imperial College London
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 26 Jun '19
  • University of Brighton
    Photography MA open afternoon Postgraduate
    Wed, 26 Jun '19
  • University of Plymouth
    General Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 26 Jun '19

What was the hardest A-level paper of 2019?

Edexcel Maths paper 1 (15)
32.61%
Edexcel Maths paper 2 (14)
30.43%
AQA Chemistry Paper 2 (9)
19.57%
Edexcel Maths Paper 3 (3)
6.52%
AQA Physics Paper 3 (5)
10.87%

Watched Threads

View All